Castling Queenside

I just started playing chess after not playing for 5 years or more. Even though I learned the game 30 years ago, I never took it serously until now. I consider myself an intermediate player even though people say my rating indicates beginner level.   As far as castling goes, ever since I learned the game, for some reason I was tought to always castle king. Lately, I always try to castle queenside in 90% of my games because it seem having two rooks on the oppossing King makes for a better, aggressive attack.  Yet when I review the games of the GMs, they seem to castle Kingside the majority of the time.  Is casting queenside in almost every game I play a mistake and hurting my chances to improve in chess?  I know, many of you will find this a rather stupid question, but for some reason, the double rooks attcking the king seem logical to me. Thanks

I do not follow this logic. Have you made the assumption that a King is generally better protected from Rooks when behind Queenside pawns than Kingside ones? Maybe you have completely forgotten than your opponent has Rooks of his own? I do not agree with the assessment that this is logical. Perhaps a more logical conclusion to come to would be that the game is less likely to be drawn? Not that I am saying such a thing.

One of the downsides of castling Queen are that it takes two extra moves - one more piece to develop before the option becomes available and the virtually required move Kb1/8 so that your King isn't so open. In effect isn't this two free moves that your opponent will get to make in aggression towards your King? Also note that the extra piece to develop is the Queen, a piece usually left unmoved until after castling has taken place, and for good reason.

Castling on the queenside require you to develop one more piece before it's possible, and the king is also rather awkwardly placed and unprotected. You are right when you say that castling on opposite sides leads to more aggressive play, as it usually leads to a pawn storm from both players, attacking the opponent's king. This is not necessarily better, though

I think this is a very good answer and explains this well. As another "beginner-intermediate" player, thank you!

You will learn as you progress in chess is that the pawn structure dictates whether you will castle Kingside or Queenside.  As you probably already know the  pawn structure is the terrain (hills, valleys and mountains) of the battlefield on the chessboard.  If you insist on castling Queenside when the terrain(pawn structure) indicates that the correct strategy is to castle Kingside or not castle you will play yourself into a bad game.  It is rather like playing a strategy/plan to go thru a mountain on the terrain of the battlefield.  It is doomed to failure.

Every game is different.

Do what suits you best against your opponent.

Hi, I think that each position has different requirements. Sometimes, clastling is even bad. Having said that, normally the best strategy is to castle short, as you will do it quickly (to castle long you also need to move the queen) Hope that helps,

http://chess-teacher.com/1632.html

Thanks for everyone's reply's.  I do realize that castling queen takes an extra move.  But I like the aggressivness of having a pawn storm and two rooks attacking my opponents King. But as some mentioned, my opponents are also attacking me and many times I was so focused on my attack, I lost the game because I didn't pay attention to obvious checkmates.  I will take the advice that every game is different and the board will dictate the proper play.  But it's a difficult habit to break because my blitz rating is finally going up by using queenside castling and I am like at 940 know when 3 months ago I was at 650.  I also realize that as you rating improves, so does the quality of the players, so maybe I got lucky with the wins because the people I were playing had low ratings like me.  Thanks everyone.  Cheers.  BobbyD

It actually takes two extra moves to castle queenside.

Empathy1 wrote:

"... But it's a difficult habit to break because my blitz rating is finally going up by using queenside castling and I am like at 940 know when 3 months ago I was at 650...)

At your rating blitz is verybad for your game.

Sometimes I try to move all of my pieces off my back rank, so that I have the option to castle either way. keeps my opponent from making a decisive attack. But I always try to castle by move 10. If my opponent castles king side and my pawn structure is already advancing towards his king on the king side. I will castle queenside to pawn storm him. However if he has alot of play on the queenside, pawns, minor pieces ect. I might not castle qside. and visa versa. Castling qside will leave a pawn unguarded also, the one on the rim. So that also requires an extra move. I like to push the rim pawn one square. But I have heard that the king sliding one square to guard the 3 pawns is better. I do that to. 

Nathan

Yaroslvavl....what are you talking about?  My rating has improved 300 points since I was at 650 three months ago.  Make some sense when you post.

I think what he means is that before you go fast you should start slow.

When you play a blitz game, you don't play a full chess game. In a blitz game, you don't have much time to think. You don't have time to calculate the variations well, to compose a plan, to play endgames. And if you don't learn these by playing slower games, you will never learn it. On the other hand, if you learn them, it will be useful in blitz games as well, it will help you to make better decisions and faster. By the way, there is almost no difference between 650 and 1000.

That is just about the most stupid thing that I have ever heard.

You're talking about castling opposite side.  I've won many games against players around my ranking and higher than my ranking castling opposite side and attacking.  It takes a certain skill and understanding of king side attack to pull off, but you shouldn't castle opposite side just because.  You should access the situation on the board first and decide if it's wise.

I think it will help your development as a player greatly to castle queenside. I am a huge advocate of playing what you like and learning from it as you go.

 people often overestimate how soon castling needs to happen. If your opponent is not fighting in the center, as is often the case in lower rated games, you can sometimes benifit by the delay of castling.

conclusion. I think it will teach you good skills,

There is  alot of merit in what you write.   To back you up I will use my own experience as an example.   I came to chess before the age of computers.  When I buit my opening  repertoire I had to do it by hand.  It took me 8 years to build an opening tree manually having to examine one published game at a time.  Today a player can have a  computer build an opening tree automatically in a very short period  of time.  In the process, however, there are many  details that I know that the player who had his opening tree built by the computer is not even aware of.

What you are advising the OP to do is similar.  Learn from the experience in the school of hard knocks.   It is the long hard way around to the knowledge that it is the pawn structure that dictates the castling decision, but it is backed up by the experience well cemented in his mind.  However, it may take him several years to figure that out.

I never castle Kingside. Only Queenside! xD